Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Change is Hoax pt 10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby clif » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 02:51:25

BTW they also like and forge letters.....

In 2009, Congress was debating the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (often known as the Waxman-Mar-key climate bill), which proposed to institute a federal carbon emissions reduction plan. Two weeks prior to the vote, Rep. Tom Perriello (VA) received a letter opposing the legislation from Creciendo Juntos, a nonprofit Latino organization based in his Charlottesville district. “My organization, Creciendo Juntos, represents minori-ties in your district,” the letter began. “We ask you to use your important position to help protect minorities and other consumers in your district from higher electricity bills. Please don’t vote to force cost increases on us, especially in this volatile economy.” Only after the vote on the bill did Rep. Perriello learn—from Creciendo Juntos—that the letter was a fraud.As it turns out, the letter on Creciendo Juntos stationery was not the only forgery, and Rep. Perriello was not the only member of Congress to receive forged letters opposing the bill. Forged letters were sent purportedly on behalf of orga-nizations including the National Association of the Advance-ment of Colored People (NAACP) (Figure 6), the American Association of University Women, the American Legion, and the Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Fraudulent letters were also sent to Representatives Kathy Dahlkemper (PA) and Chris Carney (PA) (Perriello 2009).Public exposure of the fraud resulted in a congressional investigation and hearing before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The congres-sional investigation revealed that the fraud was perpetrated by Bonner and Associates, a lobbying firm subcontracted by a front group called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), composed of and funded primarily by coal industry representatives (Center for Media and Democ-racy 2014a). The ACCCE, which remains in operation today, counts among its corporate members Arch Coal, Murray Energy, and Peabody Energy.


Now why would they have to be soooo deceitful,

if their science was soooo good?
Last edited by clif on Sun 10 Mar 2019, 03:00:19, edited 1 time in total.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 13:04:10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby clif » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 02:57:25

And why in anyone's imagination would a major oil company pay anyone to try and convince someone


Like they are doing here;

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that purports to stand for free-market principles, provides a venue for industry groups to influence policy makers behind closed doors. Leaked internal documents show that ALEC, backed by many industry groups including many major fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Shell, continues to serve as an important conduit for climate misinformation and policy proposals designed to block climate action today. (Figure 8 and Appendix F, p. 42).Like other industry groups, ALEC provides a means for major fossil fuel companies to pay lip service to the realities of climate science in their public-facing materials while their behind-the-scenes memberships and sponsorships support misinformation and block climate action.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that purports to stand for free-market principles, provides a venue for industry groups to influence policy makers behind closed doors. Leaked internal documents show that ALEC, backed by many industry groups including many major fossil fuel companies such as Chevron, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Shell, continues to serve as an important conduit for climate misinformation and policy proposals designed to block climate action today. (Figure 8 and Appendix F, p. 42).Like other industry groups, ALEC provides a means for major fossil fuel companies to pay lip service to the realities of climate science in their public-facing materials while their behind-the-scenes memberships and sponsorships support misinformation and block climate action.

Much of ALEC’s lobbying has focused on dismantling, at the state level, policies that have proven effective in reducing carbon pollution and accelerating the transition to clean energy.

ALEC has honed several tools in the fossil fuel industry’s lobbying and public relations toolbox: closed-door access to public policy makers—including more than 2,000 state legislators and a network that includes many members of Congress—and the development of industry-friendly sample legislation intended to be used as templates in state legislatures across the country.Sponsoring Misinformation ALEC’s current official position obscures climate change by calling it a “historical phenomenon,” ignoring the primary driver of climate change today—the burning of fossil fuels—and asserts that “the debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions” (ALEC 2015a).

While downplaying the impacts of climate change, ALEC has been working to block climate action at the federal and state level since the 1990s and was named in the API roadmap memo (Dossier #2, p. 9) as a participating organization or “fund allocator” (Walker 1998).Leaked internal documents reveal the extent of ALEC’s misinformation. For example, ALEC’s 2014 annual meeting in Dallas featured a presentation by Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, a group with a long history of mis-representing science that is probably best known for posting a billboard likening people who accept climate science to the “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski. The billboard featured a mug shot of a disheveled Kaczynski with the text: “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?”


Do ya kinda get it yet?
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 13:04:10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 05:42:09

Yes, Thanks Clif. So, in a few words all quite crystal clear. The FF industry rakes in as much or more than any industry. So, the disinformation/deception campaign would have actually signified peanuts compared to their potential lost income.
You know what tgey say about crime, attorneys look for 3 things:Means, motive and opportunity. Well, we know the motive is money, the opportunity stems from the corrupt political system and a underinformed/misinformed public. Finally the means is front companies, think tanks and paid off shills from both the business world and Academia ie. scientists
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby dissident » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 10:34:49

Indeed, thanks for the detailed rebuttal of the resident denier shill.

If we were dealing with the health care sector, then the sort of activity that the deniers and their sponsors are engaged in would be criminal. What they are doing is the equivalent of giving false medical advice. Interestingly, the same sort of constraints are in place for investment advice. But the most important policy subject in the history of humanity, that being its very existence, is left to unqualified riffraff as if it has no consequence.

Climate science is actually vastly more clear on the impact of green house gases on the livability of this planet, than the accepted medical knowledge of the impacts of diet. So doctors pimp the industry-concocted food pyramid as if it has universal value to patients who have insulin resistance (a genetic issue) and doom them to Type II diabetes and likely heart disease and Alzheimer's as well. But the law protects this false advice. Meanwhile, climate science gets dragged through the dirt by paid propaganda from voodoo peddlers who do not have even the right education to engage in their advocacy.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby dissident » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 10:41:58

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-w ... -timeline/

https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/e ... ier-groups

https://www.desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-f ... nce-denial

Clearly Exxon is spending a lot of money to convince somebody, retarded questions from the denier shill notwithstanding.

And this is Exxon alone! Exxon is part of the larger oil and gas industry and associated industry. Clearly the people who run these companies think that tobacco industry style denial of science is part of their normal business activity. After all, they have a business model and anything that challenges it (including reality) must be undermined.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 12:58:57

You folks need to get your arguments straight. On the one hand, you are arguing that oil companies are not making any profits, that they are all going out of business and in almost the same breath you are arguing that they are incredibly wealthy and have money to burn so they are throwing it around paying people to make stuff up. So which is it? :roll:

Your logic is basically laughable. If the science of Climate Change was settled and very simple as some here would seem to want everyone to believe then I’m sure it could weather the storm of some criticism whether it was offered up free of charge or someone paid for it. The fact that you throw a wobbly anytime someone questions any aspect of the new religion tells me you just aren’t as confident in the veracity of your argument as you would like everyone to believe.

But my point still holds….nobody in the industry cares about anyone on this or any other discussion boards views or opinions, and they certainly aren’t going to pay someone to convince a bunch of people on a Peak Oil site about anything. If you think otherwise I'm sure there are some conspiracy sites that you will enjoy.

And by the way, using Greenpeace or Desmogblog as your source of "credible" information doesn't help your case. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby jawagord » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 13:34:55

clif wrote:
by jawagord » Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:04 pm

rockdoc123 wrote:

That is not how we got Relativity, QM and Plate Tectonics. It was other individuals who had a new theory. Your skeptics have no theory.


.....I can't comment directly on the evolution of the theory of relatively other than to state....is there anyone out there in the press calling someone a denier because they are questioning certain aspects of the theory? Are there scientists still looking into aspects of relativity? The answer is yes, just do a perusal of the literature. Are there scientists who feel uncomfortable about questioning aspects of Einsteins theory? The answer is no as far as I can tell. Completely different.



Rocdoc you are too well versed in the subject of geology for this group. And I’m sure you know more about these other disciplines than most? Relativity is not my subject either but when holes appear it’s still being challenged, as good science should be, on the other hand doomsday cults require us to look away and unquestioningly drink the koolaid. Can you imagine what 100 years of challenge will do to Climate Science theory!

AP) -- For more than a century, everyone from physicists to the Nazi Party - which encouraged the publication of the tract "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein" - has tried to find cracks in his work.

On Thursday, the world's biggest physics lab unveiled a shocking finding: that one type of subatomic particle was clocked going faster than the speed of light. If true - a big if, even the scientists there concede - it could undercut Einstein's theories. Physicist Michio Kaku of City College of New York called it "the biggest challenge to relativity in 100 years."

Antonio Ereditato, who participated in the European experiment as head of the Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics in Bern, knows what is at stake. After his team fielded two hours of technical questions, some a bit sharp, from a skeptical audience Friday, Ereditato had a beer in hand and was asked about the idea that his work was challenging the secular saint of modern physics. "Yes, that's why I'm concerned," he said with a laugh.

Harvard University science historian Peter Galison said Einstein's relativity theories have been challenged and "pushed on as hard as any theory in the history of physical sciences ever" and they have survived.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2011-09-einstein-venture.html#jCp


ya know there used to be a radio personality call ed Paul harvey, who used a line;

The rest of the story.......

and here it is;

The supposed faster than speed of light neutrino experiment ...... did NOT prove Einstein's theory wrong at all.

Neutrinos not faster than light

ICARUS experiment contradicts controversial claim. Neutrinos obey nature's speed limit, according to new results from an Italian experiment. The finding, posted to the preprint server arXiv.org, contradicts a rival claim that neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light.


And the people making the original claims admitted as such;

https://www.nature.com/news/neutrinos-n ... ht-1.10249

In 2011, the OPERA experiment mistakenly observed neutrinos appearing to travel faster than light. Even before the mistake was discovered, the result was considered anomalous because speeds higher than that of light in a vacuum are generally thought to violate special relativity, a cornerstone of the modern understanding of physics for over a century.

OPERA scientists announced the results of the experiment in September 2011 with the stated intent of promoting further inquiry and debate.<b> Later the team reported two flaws in their equipment set-up that had caused errors far outside their original confidence interval: a fiber optic cable attached improperly, which caused the apparently faster-than-light measurements, and a clock oscillator ticking too fast. </b>The errors were first confirmed by OPERA after a Science Insider report; accounting for these two sources of error eliminated the faster-than-light results.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-th ... no_anomaly

So the only thing actually factual about your post is;

Relativity is not my subject, neither does it seem to be climate science......

Hint when you post a link from 2011 to make some obscure point, make sure the actual science hasn't been updated since with better data even if that data says the original claim was incorrect because of less than rigorous science .....

Well Clif, you have a special insight, I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to not understand the post was about challenging science to make science better and not about the challenge itself. The point is when we have Relativity the most celebrated theory in the history of the world still being challenged 100+ years after the fact and its still considered a theory despite all the accumulated proofs, how can anyone say with honesty the science is settled on climate change?

Don’t be a denier of the scientific method Clif!
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 10:49:17

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 17:46:27

Once again. The ice in the glaciers and ice caps is retreating and has been for a decade or more. The warming trend is real and we will have to deal with it. You can debate the cause and effect and what to do about it all you want but anyone that thinks it is not happening is a moron.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 18:10:21

The really dire situation is in the Arctic which is experiencing the greatest temp changes. Once you get a prolonged period of ice free conditions you can have rapid thawing of permafrost and outgassing of the potent GHG methane
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 18:25:39

onlooker wrote:The really dire situation is in the Arctic which is experiencing the greatest temp changes. Once you get a prolonged period of ice free conditions you can have rapid thawing of permafrost and outgassing of the potent GHG methane

I think that is a gross over statement or prediction if you prefer. Ice free conditions will be measured in weeks between seasons not prolonged periods and the ice free arctic that lasts longer then the period between late August and the end of September is a long long way into the future. Any out gassing will also be confined to that short "summer maximum" window.
You are just not going to have ice free conditions in the " just as long as it ever was" arctic night.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 10 Mar 2019, 19:06:48

Vts, recommend you read about Abrupt Climate Change on this site or google it. So, I am not so sure about what you are saying. What do other posters say?
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Fredrik » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 06:00:05

onlooker wrote:The really dire situation is in the Arctic which is experiencing the greatest temp changes. Once you get a prolonged period of ice free conditions you can have rapid thawing of permafrost and outgassing of the potent GHG methane


If we're talking subsea permafrost, it's not that literally rapid. Most methane reservoirs are dozens and hundreds of meters deep beneath the sea bottom, and even with water warming quickly, it takes quite some time for the heat to permeate the seabed.
"Only scarcity and effort make life worth living."
"A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on [individual] desires." -Pentti Linkola
User avatar
Fredrik
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun 05 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Finland

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 07:06:53

onlooker wrote:Vts, recommend you read about Abrupt Climate Change on this site or google it. So, I am not so sure about what you are saying. What do other posters say?
I have already read quite a bit about climate change including abrupt versions. Frankly much of that is complete rubbish that ignores the fact that the sun sets at the pole in September and the winter night there is 24/7 for 175 days. Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 07:37:47

Newfie wrote:You could have just said “I don’t know, we will just have to wait and see what happens. Science is totally ineffective as a practical planning tool.

And as to the Arctic ice melting before human intervention please provide proof.

You got ice extent and volume data back to 1850 or so?

And yes correlation does not mean causation, but you need it to prove your point. As you are disputing the claim it’s up to you to show an alternative theory consistent with observations.

Which takes me back to my earlier question to you:

1- Do you think Earth is warming, stable, or cooling. So you think it is warming. Good, one answer.
2-What is your hypothesis to substantiate the above. In less than a thousand words please.


Rocdock123,

How about answering the above question?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 09:19:25

rockdoc123 wrote:There is not enough work done at this point in time to allow someone to come up with a unifying theory for climate change that doesn't have tremendous holes in it. If that was not the case you would not see scads of papers appearing each year that point to inadequacies in models, measurements, assumptions as they apply to almost every area of the science.


I would agree that there is still a high level of uncertainly as to what is going to happen over the next few decades if we continue to burn large amounts of fossil fuels. So in this regards the science is not settled. However, almost all the research shows temperature increases and sea level rise -- it is just the rate of change that is not agreed on. Therefore, the prudent thing would be to work towards reducing carbon emissions even though we are not entirely certain what will happen if we don't.

To use another example, earth scientists tell us that the Vancouver area is going to be hit with a major mega-thrust earthquake. However, none of these experts can tell us when that earthquake will occur. It could be tomorrow, next week or it could be 200 years from now. Would you advise that the city of Vancouver do nothing to prepare for that earthquake because the science isn't settled and spending money now would be wasted if the earthquake didn't happen for another 200 years?
"new housing construction" is spelled h-a-b-i-t-a-t d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby clif » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 10:27:47

Well Clif, you have a special insight, I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to not understand the post was about challenging science to make science better and not about the challenge itself. The point is when we have Relativity the most celebrated theory in the history of the world still being challenged 100+ years after the fact and its still considered a theory despite all the accumulated proofs, how can anyone say with honesty the science is settled on climate change?

Don’t be a denier of the scientific method Clif!



Sorry but you as usual totally miss the point.

By allowing the rest of the story to be allowed into the discussion I showed how the scientific method actually works. The questionable test results were put to the scientific method and shown to be very wrong just like when most of the crap deniers try to foist upon the actual climate science is also shown to be crap. See my replies to rockdoc123 for further enunciation. But you are not interested in the actual science, no all you want is to try to discredit the actual science that does the best explaining what we are facing. Your posts illustrate that fact very clearly.

PS as I just showed, I'm not a denier of the scientific method as you so WRONGLY state, but someone who believes the WHOLE STORY must be included, not just the cherry picked parts that you want to point out, to make your very partisan point.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 13:04:10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 12:14:59

However, almost all the research shows temperature increases and sea level rise -- it is just the rate of change that is not agreed on. Therefore, the prudent thing would be to work towards reducing carbon emissions even though we are not entirely certain what will happen if we don't.


That is not actually the case. I like to separate “research” from “modeling”. The “research” is basically observations….temperature, sea level, ice mass balance etc. That research just tells us what is happening, not why. The inputs and subsequent outputs from models and ensembles is what drives the notion of why. It isn’t the rate of change that is as uncertain as the magnitude of change. The ECS/TCS studies speak to that magnitude directly..i.e. how much warming would come with a doubling of CO2 and those numbers are quite variable, all the way from unnoticeable to potentially quite nasty.

To use another example, earth scientists tell us that the Vancouver area is going to be hit with a major mega-thrust earthquake. However, none of these experts can tell us when that earthquake will occur. It could be tomorrow, next week or it could be 200 years from now. Would you advise that the city of Vancouver do nothing to prepare for that earthquake because the science isn't settled and spending money now would be wasted if the earthquake didn't happen for another 200 years?


Not really the same thing given we are absolutely sure that at some point an 8.0 earthquake will strike related to one of the two subduction zones off the west coast, we have evidence of it in past history, continual evidence of minor earthquakes etc. and we know what the impact would be. Mitigating through construction changes (which are effective) doesn’t require people to adjust their lifestyles nor give up anything. Climate preemptive mitigation, on the other hand, would be conducted with not actually knowing what the outcome is going to be and it would almost certainly have serious impacts on people and their lifestyles. As an example, a large carbon tax would impact the disposable income of everyone in Canada and the total impact (according to Bjorn Lomborg's calculation) of Canada on its own would be around 0.009 degrees by 2100 based on current climate models. Doesn't seem like tax money well spent to me.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby jawagord » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 16:29:35

yellowcanoe wrote:
To use another example, earth scientists tell us that the Vancouver area is going to be hit with a major mega-thrust earthquake. However, none of these experts can tell us when that earthquake will occur. It could be tomorrow, next week or it could be 200 years from now. Would you advise that the city of Vancouver do nothing to prepare for that earthquake because the science isn't settled and spending money now would be wasted if the earthquake didn't happen for another 200 years?


By this example then we should adapt to climate change by better preparing our cities, build dams, dikes, flood gates and such, for some likely natural disaster(s), which I totally agree with. What's true for earthquakes is true for Climate Science none of these experts can tell us when or where that _________ will occur. It could be tomorrow, next week or it could be 200 years from now. Taxing carbon and giving the money back in rebates or building solar parks isn't protecting our cities from the natural disasters that will happen at some point and history has shown us they always do happen.
Don't deny the peak!
jawagord
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 10:49:17

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby jedrider » Mon 11 Mar 2019, 21:16:59

vtsnowedin wrote:
onlooker wrote:Vts, recommend you read about Abrupt Climate Change on this site or google it. So, I am not so sure about what you are saying. What do other posters say?
I have already read quite a bit about climate change including abrupt versions. Frankly much of that is complete rubbish that ignores the fact that the sun sets at the pole in September and the winter night there is 24/7 for 175 days. Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.


Nothing but heat radiating out and no solar energy coming in.


Except for that the infrared is reflected by the atmosphere. But that's not all: The longer the melt season, the more solar radiation is absorbed, although for the winter, the thin layer of ice that does form - it always seems to work out the wrong way, such perverse facts that they are - which I presume insulates the oceans and prevents them from radiating their heat as well. It's very perverse. Hard to understand if you are a believer in the good will of God, I suppose.

I'm not stating 'facts' as I'm no scientist, but I do believe that may be the way it works?
User avatar
jedrider
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 10:10:44

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Tue 12 Mar 2019, 01:13:57

rockdoc123 wrote:OK. How many times do I have to explain to you how science advances?
Please find for me somewhere where it states that in order to critique some aspect of science you must have an alternative theory? It doesn’t exist because if such a requirement existed science would stand still. Have you ever bothered to read a Discussion published in any scientific journal? The rules generally around such Discussions are you can only address what was put forward in the paper your Discussion refers to, you can critique, make corrections, argue against the math or introduce other references but one thing you cannot do is offer up an alternative theory. Science advances in this manner.

But somehow, Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrodinger managed to get their alternate theories published. Not to mention many Nobel prize winners since.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 guests